NAMDEV TATOBA KAMBLE Vs. SANGLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the communication cum order of respondent No.4 dated 17th August, 1989, by which the directions were given, which resulted into reversion of the petitioner from the post of Central School Head Master to the post of Primary Teacher and respondent No.6 was given that post. The petitioner and respondent No.6 both were Primary Teachers at the relevant time working with respondent No.1 Municipal Council. Both belong to reserved category. While admitting the instant writ petition, no interim relief was granted since the position of seniority between the petitioner and respondent No.6 was not clear, however, respondent No.6 was allowed to continue on the post of Central School Head Master pending disposal of the writ petition. In view thereof, the respondent No.6 continued on the post of Central School Head Master all these years.

(2.) THE issue raised for our determination in the present petition, that which is the relevant date for considering the seniority for the purposes of promotion to the post of Central School Head Master, the date of an appointment as Primary Teacher or date of acquiring degree of Bachelors. The petitioner was appointed on 21st June, 1971 whereas respondent No.6 was appointed as Primary Teacher on 18th June, 1971 . A pre condition for an appointment as Central School Head Master is graduation. The petitioner claims to have passed B.A. in 1977 and B.Ed. in 1979. The petitioner has also passed M.A. in 1982. As against this, respondent No.6 graduated in 1984. The petitioner contends that the seniority list of graduated Primary Teachers was prepared in December 1988 in which he was at Sr. No.22 and respondent No.6 at Sr.No.92. As against this, in the common seniority list of Primary Teachers, respondent No.6 at Sr. No. 321 and the petitioner at Sr. No. 337. The petitioner contends that the seniority list of graduated Primary Teachers prepared in December 1988 prevails over the common seniority list of the Primary Teachers.

(3.) MR . Ingale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the seniority list of the graduated Primary Teachers prepared in December 1988, is the relevant seniority list, graduation being the qualification for the purpose of promoting Primary Teachers to the post of Central School Head Master and not the common seniority list as claimed by the respondents. He further contended that making the seniority list of graduated Primary Teachers ready in December 1988, supports the petitioner's claim, otherwise the department would not have prepared the seniority list of graduated Primary Teachers.